G.R. No. 204911, August 6, 2014.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MIKE STEVE y BASMAN and RASHID MANGTOMA y NONI, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Mike Steve y Basman and Rashid Mangtoma y Noni were charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for selling 972.8 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”). The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted by police officers inside Kimco Subdivision, Quezon City, on February 20, 2003, based on information from residents. PO3 Mohammad Sugod, Jr. acted as the poseur-buyer and transacted with accused-appellant Mangtoma, who handed over a plastic bag containing the shabu. After the exchange, SPO3 Santiago Gonzales arrested the accused. The seized substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused denied the charges, claiming they were forcibly taken from a residence and that the police demanded money for their release. The Regional Trial Court found them guilty and sentenced each to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱800,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict both accused-appellants of the alleged sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu,” in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The testimonies of the police officers, who were found credible by the trial court, detailed the buy-bust operation and the actual exchange of buy-bust money for the prohibited drug. The defense of frame-up was rejected as a common and easily concocted defense in drug cases, which requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The Court also ruled that alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court and cannot be questioned for the first time on appeal, especially since the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. Furthermore, non-coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) does not render a buy-bust operation illegal or the evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible.